I was talking with another player and they are sure you can't spread a full action aim over two turns (breaking it up into a half action on each turn, but still a full aim). I brought up both extended actions and reloads, as examples of ones that can be spread out, but they weren't convinced.

Which is it?

Core rulebook, page 218:

"Aiming benefits are lost if the character performs a Reaction before making his attack."

How would you ever do a Reaction if you can only Aim and Shoot in a single turn?

I'm also puzzled to think of a reason why anyone would be unwilling to accept Aim being used across multiple turns. Does your player believe that the character feels an urge to twitch in-between rounds that would make them lose the bonus from Aim?

Turns are merely an abstraction. The only reason why not ALL full actions can be split-up is streamlining, as it'd get hard to keep track of everything. I suppose a case could be made for having to do the full action Aim in one round, and then fire your gun in the next, but given the other examples you mentioned ...

Your player is wrong, aiming (like any action) can be split up over turns.

Upon re-reading the book further (triggered by cps' claim that any action can be split up, which sounded odd to me), it seems that Aim cannot be split up after all.

From page 218:

"Extended Actions are initiated on the character's turn, and are the only type of action that can be undertaken across multiple turns."

It specifically says on the Action description which ones are Extended and which ones are not, and Aim is only listed as Half or Full.

As such, combined with the aforementioned description for Aiming, it seems that you get to keep the BS bonus from Aim across multiple turns, but you cannot use multiple turns to generate it.

Not very realistic, but streamlined for ease of use.

That's a strange reading of the rules because the end result is the same. There's no reason these two cases should be treated differently:

Turn 1:
- half action finish reload
- half action aim

Turn 2:
- half action aim
- attack with +20 aim bonus

Turn 1:
- full action aim

Turn 2:
- attack with +20 aim bonus

I also find it counter intuitive that you can maintain your aim to the next round, but are not able to improve it the next round.

I agree it's counter-intuitive, especially as I don't believe that "end of turn" should be such a barrier between actions when it is supposed to be a representation of a fixed amount of seconds passing. Time does not stop, so technically I'd lean towards cps' opinion that any action should be splittable, though ruleswise I believe that could get chaotic.

Perhaps they thought that having to keep track of where exactly your Aim was (remembering that you can still get another +10 by expending another half action) at would be too much of a hassle.

It's not quite the end of the turn that causes you to lose the benefit of the Aim Action, more that the next Action you have to take must be some for Attack Action "or the benefits of Aiming are lost".

As cps points out that becomes a little problematic when you split two Half Action Aims over successive Rounds, as mechanically there is no real difference between a single Full Action Aim and two Half Action Aims.

Personally, I'd allow two Half Action Aims over successive Rounds but frankly that's an arbitrary distinction. You could always treat Aim Actions similarly to how Shadowrun 5e does, allow them to take a number of Half Action Aims equal to their Willpower Bonus. If their next Action after that isn't some for of Attack they lose the benefit of having aimed, same for taking Reactions.

It's not quite the end of the turn that causes you to lose the benefit of the Aim Action, more that the next Action you have to take must be some for Attack Action "or the benefits of Aiming are lost".

As cps points out that becomes a little problematic when you split two Half Action Aims over successive Rounds, as mechanically there is no real difference between a single Full Action Aim and two Half Action Aims.

Personally, I'd allow two Half Action Aims over successive Rounds but frankly that's an arbitrary distinction. You could always treat Aim Actions similarly to how Shadowrun 5e does, allow them to take a number of Half Action Aims equal to their Willpower Bonus. If their next Action after that isn't some for of Attack they lose the benefit of having aimed, same for taking Reactions.

I don't believe CPS' first example works the way he listed due to the bit you quoted about losing the bonus for taking non attack actions. Aiming is an action so if you perform a half action aim and then perform another half action aim, since the second aim wasn't an attack action the bonus from the first aim is lost, and so you would still just have only a +10 total from aiming.

That having been said I think its stupid that a full action aim can't be split between turns and would probably rule that it can.

There really is no good reason for the following:

Situation 1:

Round 1:

Player takes 1/2 action move

Starts full action aim

Round 2:

finishes full action aim

fires

(not allowed)

Situation 2:

Round 1:

character starts and completes full action aim

Round 2:

Character fires

character performs half action move.

(allowed)

I think it is rather silly that situation 1 above is not allowed when situation 2 is fine considering the only difference is the order the character wants to do things in. Why should it take the character in situation 1 a whole extra half action to do the same stuff in a different order. Ends up feeling like a pointless restriction.

Any action can be taken as an extended action if it is more than half-turn.

Any action can be taken as an extended action if it is more than half-turn.

Not according to RAW, at least. The book specifically points out which actions can be Extended ones, and which not.

For example, Reload is listed as "Half Action, Full Action or Extended Action".

Aim, on the other hand, is listed as "Half Action or Full Action".

Thanks guys, I think I will ask the game devs to make sure at this point

Edit: And I forgot how to do that XD

Why bother asking the devs? Aim should be able to be split over multiple rounds, RAI. Done.

By this point, I don't think it's RAI. But that doesn't mean you couldn't houserule it.

Over the many books that were printed, there have been quite a few rules that many consider silly. Remember how you're supposed to treat all Critical Injuries as a single value rather than per-location?

By this point, I don't think it's RAI. But that doesn't mean you couldn't houserule it.

Over the many books that were printed, there have been quite a few rules that many consider silly. Remember how you're supposed to treat all Critical Injuries as a single value rather than per-location?

To your 2nd point first: I actually like that interpretation. It's a logical extension of the narrative structure behind the wounds system. Taking 10 damage to the chest when you have 10 wounds doesn't kill you. Taking 10 damage to the check when you have 10 wounds explodes your corpse into a pile of blood, blinding people and such (or whatever). Clearly, there are some liberties taken here with physics and biology. My understanding is that this is basically "movie hit points." Once a person has taken a few superficial blows (represented by wounds), all hit become progressively more dramatic and deadly.

Sometimes a knife in the arm hurts. Other time it chops off your arm and you die of blood loss. This is clearly a narrative mechanic to increase the risk and drama of extended fights.

To your 1st point: I think it is RAI. There's the ruling about not being able to make reactions and there's rules covering extended actions. I think the intention is to allow Aim to work that way. RAW, it isn't allowed. It's the purview of houserules, I'd agree, but I don't think you need to ask the devs. It's a minor rule that affects very little and the houseruling is emminently logical.

Even IF the devs said no, I'd still houserule it the other way.

Asking the devs for clarification is absolutely a good idea. Remind them how unclear their rules are and ask them to fix it and maybe they'll write better rules in the future.

That said:

Even IF the devs said no, I'd still houserule it the other way.

This is the correct answer.

My understanding is that this is basically "movie hit points." Once a person has taken a few superficial blows (represented by wounds), all hit become progressively more dramatic and deadly.

I guess so. And it's easier to track. Still, it sounds weird when a completely unharmed bodypart explodes into small giblets just because of an attack that barely got one or two Wounds through pushes the overall Crit counter to 9 or 10.

Overall, the effect is probably negligible due to the abstraction and the narrative effect you mention, so it may just be something that sounds a lot worse on paper than it actually feels in the game.

To your 1st point: I think it is RAI. There's the ruling about not being able to make reactions and there's rules covering extended actions.

But the ruling about Extended Actions is pretty clear -- it would be a massive oversight if it should apply to Aim as well.

The bit with Reactions is not a conflict, it just means that you can keep the +20 BS across Turns. But not that you can stretch out their build-up, as in: +10 in one Turn, and another +10 on the next.

I'm conflicted as to whether I'm actually fine with it or would prefer a houserule, though. On one hand, it's unrealistic and too "artificial", too much of a reminder of the turn-based structure of the game. But on the other it prevents people from messing up, and if the Aim action can be split up across multiple Turns, it should be possible for any Full Action (making the Extended Actions rule useless).

That being said, I'm used to people stringing together multiple Aim actions from other games, anyways.

I'm conflicted as to whether I'm actually fine with it or would prefer a houserule, though. On one hand, it's unrealistic and too "artificial", too much of a reminder of the turn-based structure of the game. But on the other it prevents people from messing up, and if the Aim action can be split up across multiple Turns, it should be possible for any Full Action (making the Extended Actions rule useless).

That being said, I'm used to people stringing together multiple Aim actions from other games, anyways.

Looking at the other Full action combat actions, it makes total sense why they're listed as full actions. All Out Attack is a full action and that makes sense - any attack you make should be completely resolved on your turn. Run takes time to complete and should be resolved on your turn (since your ending position is very relevant to other combatants). Tactical advance is a strategic move that allows you to retain a cover bonus while moving - not something that makes sense if not fully resolved on your turn.

There are a few that are grey areas - Overwatch is full but I would be okay with splitting it over turns (no benefit until completed). Focus Power varies by power - half/full/extended. I'd also probably be okay splitting full action powers.

The simplest fix is to list Aim as Varies: Half, Full, Extended instead of Varies: Half, Full.

Logical steps:

1. You can't use a Full action in the same turn as a Half action.

2. An Extended action is anything that cannot be performed in one turn.

3. Therefore taking a Full action in the same turn as a half-action is an Extended action.

2. An Extended action is anything that cannot be performed in one turn.

How would you ever do a Reaction if you can only Aim and Shoot in a single turn?

Why can't you shoot, run for, let's say, 9 metres (let's say 3 AB), wait for your opponent turn, run for 9 more metres and shoot another time, and should use Half Action Move, with only 3 metres?

So if Run is resonable and can't be splitted because it's special action, such can be Aim.

Why can't you shoot, run for, let's say, 9 metres (let's say 3 AB), wait for your opponent turn, run for 9 more metres and shoot another time, and should use Half Action Move, with only 3 metres?

So if Run is resonable and can't be splitted because it's special action, such can be Aim.

I get what you're saying, but the nature of run is such that I don't think it should be allowed to be split. RAW, you're getting -20 to BS tests against you (pretty nice). If you split run, do you get that on both turns? Half it to -10 on each turn? Likewise, you're also at +20 WS to be hit - same issue.

Then you get into gaming the system - half action run to run up to someone at say, 12 meters, to get to point blank range and blasting a guy vs RAW staying at range or running up into melee contact. It creates an incentive to time your actions such that a skilled player will run into range for the range bonus and fire on the same turn.

You have a similar problem with Aim in my example above - if you can split it up, why can't you do half action run as your first move, then a different half action. Run just doesn't work as an extended action.

Yup. So that's why I believe that Run and full-round Aim can't be splitted, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Aim isn't Extended action too, btw - you have bonus or you not. It's not something you should to do-do-do until result happens; such as Run isn't "Extended action to run for 3 times your running speed". It's not a roll.

Well, maybe if you do it as a Strength-test for your jaws whilst you gnaw at the Marine's throat. Skill tests are really up to the GM to interpret as they see fit when it comes to deciding whether they are Half, Full or Extended Actions.

But for any non-Skill Action, the book does indeed point it out specifically which ones can be done across multiple Turns.

Simple - no rule demand that your aimed shoot should be in same turn Aim was.

Yep, see post #4.

Logical steps:

1. You can't use a Full action in the same turn as a Half action.

2. An Extended action is anything that cannot be performed in one turn.

3. Therefore taking a Full action in the same turn as a half-action is an Extended action.

I like this

Yep, see post #4.